The sea of 360 dross

[Asher]

This is where I pull a DrSpike and ask you to back up that claim.

[DrSpike]

Very well:

Of all 30 full price games released between 01/01/08 and 01/05/08 (1st May) 15 are below 70.

Of all 36 full price games released between 01/01/09 and now 22 are below 70.

The difference in the proportions is statistically significant, even at stretching levels of significance. In case the response is that I've selected 70 to yield the result I want the overall average for 2009 is higher than 2008 too.

This time are you man enough to admit you are wrong? Or will you attempt to obfuscate and insult? Answers on a postcard to we-all-know-which@drspikeisright.com.

[Asher]

So we've seen 6 more titles released, and 7 more under 70 overall? BTW, you neglected to compare this to the Wii (which was part of your assertion).

This is what you are *****ing about?

No, I'm not wrong. It's clear you're being a drama queen here. You're talking about a difference of about 10% year over year for arbitrarily chosen numbers. Get real.

Moving on...

My assertion is this is a traditional lull period in gaming releases, and the 360 is starting to see more shovelware because of its large userbase. You then provided statistics showing the 360 is seeing more releases -- and an almost direct 1:1 relationship between additional releases and shovelware games -- and you think it proves me wrong?

[Asher]

No, it's not any worse. The volume of games being released is actually higher is the only difference.

And no, it's not new. Look at the PS2 game releases by its 3rd or 4th year. It had a high enough installbase to start getting the shovelware attention also. Gamers just ignored it.

This isn't news and it isn't interesting, unless you consider the angle that the publishers now see the 360's installbase as being big enough for a "Hannah Montana" video game to sell well on.

I urge you to read this again, DrSpike, because it perfectly describes what your numbers show.

[DrSpike]

I knew it.

It's pretty clear. You said that the scores were not any worse this year, just more games are released. I responded that the proportion of games with poor scores was higher this year. You asked me to prove it and I did (using 2008 data).

Man up for once and admit your error.

[Asher]

I knew it.

It's pretty clear. You said that the scores were not any worse this year, just more games are released. I responded that the proportion of games with poor scores was higher this year. You asked me to prove it and I did (using 2008 data).

Man up for once and admit your error.

Is this some joke on your part?

Read my post, it describes EXACTLY what you are saying.

There are MORE games (this is 'VOLUME' in my post, if you are confused), because developers are CASHING IN ON SHOVELWARE due to the 360's marketshare. Lo and behold, there are 6 more games released in your chosen time period, and only 7 more "games below 70%". WHAT A COINCIDENCE. Look at the KINDS of games that are getting those scores, for example Hannah Montana: The Movie. These are not traditional Xbox kinds of titles, the increased marketshare means publishers are starting the shovelware wave to try to cash in.

Drop this pathetic act, DrSpike, you're better than this.

[Asher]

You've asked what's going on, I give an intelligent, reasonable, and obvious answer and then you spend the rest of the thread trying to get me to admit "I was wrong"?

You're losing your edge, DrSpike. It's pretty clear you overreacted with the thread, you tried to justify it but the evidence just isn't there (6 more titles in the timeframe, 7 more shovelware titles), and now you're trying to deflect attention away from it. Textbook.

I haven't even had to mention your OP discussed the quantity of "good games", which is independent of the quantity of "bad games" you are focusing on in this hole-digging exercise.

[DrSpike]

Yeah there are more games in 2009 (I've not disputed this), but the statement you disagreed with and asked me to prove was about the proportions of games that were poor. And like it or not the proportion of games below 70 is statistically higher in 2009 compared to 2008.

You can say it's just 6 more games and 7 more poor games as many times as you want - this is a poor way of presenting the data and doesn't change the fact you are wrong.

[Asher]

Yeah there are more games in 2009 (I've not disputed this), but the statement you disagreed with and asked me to prove was about the proportions of games that were poor.

And a 10% difference isn't huge, which is why you epicly failed.

You can say it's just 6 more games and 7 more poor games as many times as you want - this is a poor way of presenting the data and doesn't change the fact you are wrong.

I'm not wrong. My assertion is there's more shovelware games being released. You just proved it. The problem is the number of good games is not really changing, which is why you focused on the # of "shovelware" games vs the number of good games -- even though your OP discusses the latter, not the former.

You're ****ing spinning is getting very obnoxious. You are dangerously close to slipping to LOTM status in my Excel spreadsheet on Poly posters.

[Asher]

Other pathetic aspects of this thread:

- Why the arbitrary mark of 70%? Why not 60 or 80%?
- What about of good games being released (eg, over 80)?
- Longitudinally how can you say the sample size is big enough for variations of 10-20% year over year as the norm? Eg, what's the difference between 07 and 08? 05 and 08? You are assuming it is somewhat constant and not varying every year, which is faulty.

Come on! You know this ****, drop the act. The sample size is sufficiently small and you're talking about a 10% difference in "good/bad" proportion for your arbitrarily chosen time period with arbitrarily chosen threshold.

This is beyond pathetic. Seriously. Just admit it.

[DrSpike]

And a 10% difference isn't huge, which is why you epicly failed.

It's not 10% - its 10 (actually 11) percentage points. And the distributions are statistically significantly different. I think you just don't understand basic stats, and I'm actually a little disappointed.

[Felch]

And a 10% difference isn't huge, which is why you epicly failed.

It's been a decade full of powerful reefer since I took statistics. Does anybody remember how to figure if this is a statistically significant difference?

[Asher]

It's not 10% - its 10 (actually 11) percentage points. And the distributions are statistically significantly different. I think you just don't understand basic stats, and I'm actually a little disappointed.

Someone who understands basic stats understands a sample size of 30 is inadequate? And given the small sample size, 10 PERCENTAGE POINTS is perfectly reasonable.

If I happened to **** out a game called DRSPIKE DOES DALLAS that gets 25% avg review also before May 1st, what does that do to your number?

You ALSO have to take into account annual variation year over year. Your assumption is it's similar or constant, which is not especially true.

[DrSpike]

Someone who understands basic stats understands a sample size of 30 is inadequate? And given the small sample size, 10 PERCENTAGE POINTS is perfectly reasonable.

Great, you accept that its 10pp not 10% (even though you've repeated stated it's 10%).

The sample size of 30 is perfectly adequate for this test.

[Asher]

Great, you accept that its 10pp not 10% (even though you've repeated stated it's 10%).

Give me a ****ing break! You are still squirming by FOCUSING THE ATTENTION ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN THE OBVIOUS. Focus on the BIG PICTURE here, which you continually annoy.

The sample size of 30 is perfectly adequate for this test.

No, it is not! Because a couple releases like Hannah Montana and suddenly OMFG IT IS A SEA OF 360 DROSS as you have aptly demonstrated.

Keep digging, DrSpike, and let me know when you run into Ben Kenobi and his harem of scantily dressed pedarest slaves.

If this thread was an attempt to push my buttons with chronic stupidity, spin, and general douchebaggery on your behalf, you have wildly succeeded. Can it end now?